JUDGMENT

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

Darshan Singh and Sons (HUF) owns property No. E-25, South Extension Part -I, New Delhi.

2. With a view to provide affordable and hygienic accommodation to foreign and domestic tourists, the Central Government formulated a scheme as per which residential buildings could be used for providing boarding and lodging to tourists. It was a term of the scheme that the person availing benefit of the scheme should have his/her residence in the building. The scheme was called 'Paying Guest Residential Accommodation'.

3. Vide letter No. Trav.14(1)/91 dated 17.12.1993 petitioner obtained permission to use property No. E-25, South Extension Part-I for keeping paying guests. Permission was for a period of 5 years.

4. As per the petitioner when the scheme was in force, the Central Government decided that Government of NCT Delhi should be the regulatory body to grant approval under the Scheme for those who wished to avail benefit under the scheme or wished to continue under the scheme after sanction period lapsed.

5. Petitioner claims that the Government of NCT, Delhi did not frame any guidelines when it became the regulatory body to deal with paying guest residential accommodations. Since 5 years period had lapsed and petitioner did not know when to approach for renewal, it filed a writ petition in this Court which was registered as C.W.P. No. 3303/99. It was disposed of vide order dated 1.8.2002 which reads as under:

"Present: Ms. Hima Kohli for the petitioner Mr. Yogesh Chaudhary for respondent

CW No. 3303/99

Let a copy of the policy, based on which the petitioner is to apply, be supplied to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today. Petitioner shall, within two weeks of the receipt of the policy, make an application. A decision thereon shall be taken by the respondents within four weeks of the receipt of the application. Till the decision is taken by the respondents, interim order shall continue.

The writ petition stands disposed of with these observations. In case the petitioner has any grievance with regard to the decision taken by the respondents, he may seek such remedies as available at law.'

6. Petitioner claims that since it did not receive the policy, in absence whereof it could not apply for permission to continuance use of the premises as paying guest accommodation, on 14.11.2002, it wrote a letter to the Tourism Department of Government of NCT, Delhi requesting that copy of the scheme be supplied so that it could seek registration under the scheme. It did not receive any response from the Tourism Department and therefore sent a reminder on 19.5.2003. Getting no response, on 11.11.2003, another reminder was sent.

7. As per the petitioner, neighbouring property No. E-24, NDSE, Part I was illegally put to use as a 'Halwai' shop and dirty water started seeping from said property to that of the petitioner. Hence it was constrained to file a suit for injunction to restrain owner of said property from using the property or carrying on such activity therefrom which cause damage to the property of the petitioner. Since MCD was the civic body to enforce municipal laws, MCD was impleaded as a defendant.

8. MCD filed a written statement in which it disclosed that petitioner was guilty of using its premises for running a guest house without permission from the competent authority and without a licence and was even challaned on 8.10.2003 before the Municipal Magistrate.

9. As per the petitioner said challan was mala fide and was intended to non- suit the petitioner.

10. Petitioner pleads that use of a premises for paying guest accommodation needs no licence from the MCD. It is additionally pleaded that Government of NCT, Delhi has never intimated the policy under which petitioner could apply for revalidation of the permission.

11. It is accordingly prayed by the petitioner that challan dated 8.10.2003 be quashed and MCD be restrained from interfering in the running of the Paying